> > I don't agree that I need to come up with anything beyond raising the idea that we should stop thinking that government can/will solve this.
> Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us?
He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government, because the government isn't actually going to do anything (or at least not anything like enough).
So if you're going to argue with his position, I would ask you what evidence you see that the government will ever do anything close to enough to solve global warming? Because, as I look at the current situation, and the last 10 years, I'm with andrewstuart: government isn't going to get it done. That plan shows almost zero evidence that it will ever work.
Now, look, you should keep trying to get government to do what you think needs done. But don't put all your eggs in that basket, because it looks like it's a pretty lousy basket.
We don't know. The point at the moment is that it needs to be replaced - that government is not going to take adequate action. "What should we do" is the next question, and a very good one.
I guess, if I were to pick one thing, I might say "install solar everywhere you can". Not only do you use less fossil-generated power, but you also help manufacturers ride the cost curve down, which makes more people consider installing it.
And by "everywhere you can", I mean some places were you can't actually install it, but you can nudge people that way. Suggest to your boss that they should install it at work. Mention it to the minister at church, or to the manager at the bar (or even both, if you regularly go both places).
The obvious problem is that without the government authority by threat of violence, selfish entities will certainly choose to go their own way. You and your community may choose to use composting toilets, but Dow Chemical will find it cheaper, sans EPA, to just dump their effluvia in the local river.
To be clear: I believe in and support the notion that the government should set the rules (based on established science) and enforce the law. (No, not particularly with physical violence beyond that needed for incarceration of gross offenders.)
> Oh yes you do. Certainly you think we can have an alternative to government for a reason? Care to share that with us?
He did. You didn't listen. He said that we need something beside the government, because the government isn't actually going to do anything (or at least not anything like enough).
So if you're going to argue with his position, I would ask you what evidence you see that the government will ever do anything close to enough to solve global warming? Because, as I look at the current situation, and the last 10 years, I'm with andrewstuart: government isn't going to get it done. That plan shows almost zero evidence that it will ever work.
Now, look, you should keep trying to get government to do what you think needs done. But don't put all your eggs in that basket, because it looks like it's a pretty lousy basket.